Reading between the lines

Sometimes, life is like a giant puzzle. Folks have to connect the dots, find the hidden items or detect the obvious differences between one image and the next.

Tough, but not impossible.

A newspaper’s not so different. Reporters write what they’re told or about what they find. In the best possible scenario, reporters present straight-up information. Their stories are published and people take a look when the newspaper arrives at their house the next morning and draw their own conclusions.

Then perhaps they read between the lines. Can’t blame them. It’s where the most interesting things can sometimes be found.

And for those who enjoy reading between the lines, well, last week was like “War and Peace” “Moby Dick” and “And for Whom the Bell Tolls” all rolled into one.

The two stories in question involved the on-again and off-again proposal by Sheriff Terry Johnson to get raises for his staff, a group that, let’s face it, is sorely in need of a salary bump after about four or five years without one. They need a raise and then some — in a perfect world.

In that respect, several hundred Alamance County employees fall into the same category. Lots of people in private businesses do too, for that matter.

Just say it’s been a long dry spell in paycheck-land. I wish they could all get raises.

Anyway, the sheriff was scheduled to speak to the Alamance County Board of Commissioners Tuesday night. On the agenda, it stated his reason for doing so was to discuss a “Staffing and Retention Proposal.”

And that’s pretty much all the agenda had to say on the subject. The accompanying agenda package made available to commissioners, the media and public also offered no other details.

Weird.

That’s because usually — but not always — agenda packets are crammed with background information, facts, figures, charts and graphics about whatever is to be discussed. Makes sense. People can’t be expected to vote on something they have no time to study. And the public should be aware enough in advance so they know whether to offer support or criticism before a vote is taken.

Democracy in action, as they say.

So when the agenda arrived, we had some questions. For a story prior to the meeting, our reporter spoke to Sheriff’s Office spokesman Randy Jones because the sheriff was not available. He confirmed that the sheriff would be seeking raises across the board for his staff. We heard 9 percent. Not sure if that’s the case or not. Jones couldn’t say one way or another. He also provided no specifics about how the county would pay for the increases. It was clear, though, the Sheriff’s Office is having trouble keeping personnel, who are going where the grass is greener. Can’t really blame them.

According to our story, though, commissioners David Smith and Bill Lashley were pretty well versed on what the sheriff was planning to propose and how he thought the county might pay for it. They knew even though Johnson did not make any specific part of his presentation available in advance to County Manager Craig Honeycutt.

Commissioner Tom Manning, who’s only the board chairman, by the way, and Commissioner Linda Massey didn’t know any nuts and bolts about the proposal, except that the sheriff would address the board. Massey perhaps had more of a head’s up, but nothing set in stone. Commissioner Tim Sutton said he only knew details about the matter because he specifically requested the information — more than once.

On the day our first story appeared Tuesday, the sheriff called our reporter prior to the meeting to say the proposal would be delayed until closer to budget time. He said he had spoken to four commissioners about the plans — including Sutton and Massey — a few weeks ago. Sutton said it was late last year. At that time Sutton said he told the sheriff he would support it if the numbers indicated it could be paid for without a tax increase. The sheriff didn’t speak to Manning about it at all until the day our story was published.

So, reading between the lines, let’s recap.

â–ª The sheriff talked to four of five commissioners in advance over the past few weeks individually Â— but not in a group of more than two. This remains within the boundary of the state Open Meetings Law, but pretty much obliterates the spirit of the law.

â–ª He only freely offered specifics of his plan to two Â— Smith and Lashley Â— without being requested to do so by a third.

â–ª He only advised the board chairman of his proposal at all after a story was already published about it.

â–ª He would not give an advance copy of his proposal, which would impact the county budget, to the county manager.

â–ª No advance copy of the proposal was available in the agenda packet provided to the public and media.

â–ª Looks like transparency in how government operates or even the very idea of open government was not part of the equation.

Between the lines, that’s how the puzzle pieces seem to fit, anyway.

Madison Taylor is editor of the Times-News. Contact him by email at mtaylor@thetimesnews.com. Follow him on Twitter @tnmadisontaylor.